Skip to main content

View Diary: Dred Scott, Explained: It's About Abortion (338 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Perhaps it was prepared, but so what? (none)
    I still find the notion that Dred Scott is some sort of code word for the hardcore anti-choicers bizarre.  What does he need to speak in code for on this subject when he already spoke explicitly on the same subject in the debate?

    And even if he was, I still think the best way to defeat is not to expose this "code speak" to the world (which he'll easily deny) but to tackle the issue itself:  strict constructionism is nothing but the same old set of anti-civil rights, anti-abortion politics, and it has no more to do with the "Founding Fathers" than Brittney Spears does.

    •  cuz (none)
      he can be anti-choice but he can't stand there and say he'll appoint justices who have to pass the so-called litmus test.
    •  asdf (none)
      What does he need to speak in code for on this subject when he already spoke explicitly on the same subject in the debate?

      Because he was broadcasting his litmus test for the selection of Supreme Court justices to his base. That's what the question was about. The point I often make here when people decry the necessity for a litmus test on reproductive rights for women is that the republicans have a litmus test of their own and it's perfectly obvious to anyone with half a brain who listens to them that they do.

      "...the definition of a gaffe in Washington is somebody who tells the truth but shouldn't have." Howard Dean

      by colleen on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 11:34:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't know why you don't believe it (4.00)

      The purpose of the Dred Scott mention was to allow Bush to (a) answer the question by saying "hell yes, I'll only appoint anti-choice judges", and (b) not take the political fallout from doing so.

      (a) is necessary because he if he says anything different in response to this question, his conservative Christian [sic] base will eat him up.

      And (b) is necessary because if the moderates in this country -- including undecided Democrats and moderate Republicans -- realized that he was saying on nationwide television "I will only appoint judges who will make abortion illegal," he would never get re-elected.

      I'm sorry you don't believe it, but it's true. It may sound bizarre to you, but this is EXACTLY the way that Bush and co. function with regard to their extremist base. And it's the only reason that Dred Scott was mentioned.

      In conservative thinking, if you oppose Dred Scott, then you oppose abortion. This is bizarre, yes. But it's their thinking that's bizarre, not my analysis of the situation.

      --Kynn

      •  I can believe what you're saying (none)
        I don't necessarily agree with all the "scales lifted from my eyes" comments of some of the other posters.

        I guess, none of this surprises me.  It's interesting, I suppose, that the anti-choicers make this absurdly inaccurate analogy with Dred Scott, but I don't see what it changes.  The fight for a woman's right to choose goes on.  When has it ever been anything other than a fight?

        In the past NOT overturning Roe v. Wade has been a political advantage to the anti-choice side, keeping the base riled up, as Thomas Frank has so ably documented in "What's the Matter with Kansas".

        However, they can't keep this up forever.  Sooner or later they're going to have to deliver or the base will get discouraged.  For four years, they've had to face this reelection campaign.  When they no longer have to do so, they may indeed finally go for the kill on Roe v. Wade.

        A lame duck Bush is more dangerous than the one who has to face election.  For this reason, and so many others.

    •  You may find it bizarre, but I (none)
      who was raised a conservative, didn't even blink at it - until he muddled it all into incoherence, because he obviously doens't know enough US history to be able to get the facts of one of the most famous cases in history straight.

      It wasn't until everyone started going WTF?!? that I realized that this wasn't common knowledge, outside conservative Catholic writings. To me it was just, Oh, that's him waving to the prolife voters, only he tripped as he waved.

      "Don't be a janitor on the Death Star!" - Grey Lady Bast (change @ for AT to email)

      by bellatrys on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 09:28:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site